Exocet6951

Pretty much. "Too many gunboats? I kemp harder" "Too many cruisers, I kemp" "Too many BBs, I kemp" "There's a CV? I kemp" "There are 20km torpedoes with 15 second reaction time? I kemp"

Sweet, we can have zones with a sort of vision based bonus, like a surveillance station of sorts, defended by bunkers and th- Ah crap, we just made Bastion 2.0

Indeed, it's especially fitting for both the NO and Baltimore, as a T7 NO keeps similar firepower and design date (and treaty limitations) as other T7 CAs, and a T8 Baltimore can be the standard-bearer for the wartime CA design like it happens at T8 for other CA branches with ships like the Hipper, Martel (as it would have been in 1942 or 1943), Mogami and Atago. I'm not a fan of a T6 Pensacola though. USN 203mm AP is really potent, and putting it too low is just asking for trouble. The Pensacola is in my opinion going to remain the loathed super glass canon as it currently is, only now it's going to be more frustrating to use with lower accuracy and lower rate of fire. Dropping it from T7 to T6 is a nerf in disguise, if anything.

That moment 7 enemy ships, including a Minotaur, think they can tank 431mm shells while full broadside 16km away or less... 3257 base xp for 331k damage

To be honest, I'm certain 80% of them would pop their shield during the first then have it on cooldown when a but closer to the enemy while obviously full broadside. Hold on hold on hold on.... Let me try a thing.... "I get the frustration, and I do agree that some ideas or nerfs to CVs are frankly poor thought, but I do not believe a path of aggression helps. In the end, the people that you antagonise are the people that populate the lobby of the game. Treat them with disdain or aggression and risk longer queue times. In the end, if everyone you antagonise is so bad then the easier it should be for you to win easily, right?" And that's why all CVs are treated with respect and why we don't have 5 minute wait time for T9 and T10 CVs. Oh wait... Turns out it's totally ok to antagonize and scapegoat DDs and CVs for over 2 years with made up claims like "CV can one-shoot anyone they like every 2 minutes" and "DDs have 5km concealment with torpedoes that can kill a BB with 3 hits", but as soon as you do it to BBs, it's mean and you should refrain because that's antagonizing people and risking longer queue times. lul They were too busy doing fixing a bug where BBs could be reliably citpenned within 2 weeks of its knowledge. Could you imagine that, a bug that makes BBs and brainless top kek turtleback KM CAs vulnerable when they potato? Move aside year old bugs and balance fixes such as DDs taking double regular pen damage, CVs' UI downright rebelling against the player and CA/CLs taking ridiculous damage from shells citpenning through the superstructure+deck plus taking out a turret at the end, there's a real problem to fix !

Facilement en fait. Les gros canons qui font mal, ça marche quand ils sont précis. Le République ne l'est pas. Avec un manque de précision et/ou manque de volume, il perd la capacité de faire de bonnes grosses salves qui font peur de manière récurrente. Tirer sur un Montana immobile de flanc a 12km et toucher que deux obus, c'est pas rare. C'est 7-8k de dégât, mais une fois que tu as rechargé, le Montana est anglé et tu perd l'avantage. Avec un autre navire T10 , voir même un Alsace, un tir malchanceux comme ça, c'est 4 obus au but pour 12k de dégât. C'est un cuirassé qui compte sur la chance de l'utilisateur. J'ai fais de parties avec 7 coups au but pour 5 citpen dès l'entrée de jeu, tout comme j'ai fais des parties ou le RNG a fait que tous les obus font plouf partout autours de la cible. C'est pour cela que je considère, pour moi, que le République est moins bien que l'Alsace. Il perd beaucoup de fiabilité pour la promesse de temps en temps avoir de meilleurs résultats contre les cuirassés et 5 croiseurs (9-10 USN, 8-10 KM). C'est pas un bon navire pour moi car il n'est pas fiable. Mon analogie avec le Gneisekongo reste d'actualité. Certaines personnes vont adorer le côté "Si le RNG le veux bien, tu triple citpen et overmatch un cuirassé de l'autre côté de la map", mais perso, je trouve que plus de canons plus petits offre une flexibilité et fiabilité qui rend le navire plus constant dans sa performance.

J'ai finalement craqué et j'ai acheté le bestiaux (tout en gardant l'Alsace dans le port), et même avis que @TheSugeKnight , ce navire n'est pas vraiment bon. Enfin, il a le potentiel d'être dévastateur, et là est le problème. Pour moi, le République est un navire qui fait plus peur que mal. Certes la peur de se prendre 16 obus de 431mm en l'espace de 20 secondes et des brouettes est fondée, mais en pratique.... Ce navire, c'est comme prendre la puissance de feu du Gneisenau pour la placer sur le Kongo en T5. Certes sur papier c'est cool, les canons sont gros et on tire plus vite le tout sur un navire rapide....mais ça sert à quoi si on overpen les croiseurs et on brise les obus tirés de trop loin sur la ceinture principale des cuirassés de même tier avec le peu d'obus qu'on arrive à mettre au but, tellement la précision et volume de tir est inadapté au tier? A mes yeux, l'Alsace est tout simplement supérieur. Il combine la cadence de tir, pénétration, et volume de tir pour faire un navire rapide et maniable qui est capable de faire du dégât sur le temps et est capable de faire une frappe puissante quand l'opportunité se présente, cette dernière chose que le République en pratique n'arrive pas a faire en raison de la dépendance du RNG.

Coming out of the harcore futa furry loli closet, WoWS edition.

Easy fix for the branch: make an alternate T10 called Alsace (1950) or something. It's just an identical Alsace, but replacing some 37mm AA with 57mm AA, making the guns have 28s base reload with a bit more accuracy, 10k more HP, and tada ! T10 material. Bonus points for it still being more historical and logical than the ingame Lyon.

The problem isn't battleships, the problem is that 80% (conservative estimate) of players have no idea how to use the ships they have. I just came out of 2 games back to back where cruisers basically refused to use a radar or hydro on nearby DDs. You have Hindenburgers with a 6km hydro in a DD heavy/CV less meta, but equiping DFAA. You have Baltimores that prefer to max range HE spam, and don't bother ever using radar, despite having 2 puffs of smoke and red torpedoes within 7km of your ship. You have Shimas with AFT firing their guns at 13km on full HP BBs. BBs sniping is more visible because they live longer and it's more of a blow to the team's cohesion. But don't get any wrong ideas, it's 4/5th of the players who are absolutely incompetent to the point of not even understanding the purpose of the consumables they have on their T9/10 ships. We don't need a solution to BBs camping, we need a solution to players so stupid that they can't even figure out why firing torpedoes that go 6km won't hit targets 16km away, or that they'll be useful to the team by not having the most inaccurate guns on the more resistant ships be the furthest away from the enemy. I'm not going to lie, and this isn't an exaggeration, but I have never seen a playerbase a unintelligent as the one in WG games.

I don't think mechanical problems are represented ingame, and the Akizuki was never meant to be a speed demon, being an AA platform and all of that (I might be wrong, but I'm assuming the naval architects didn't mess up so badly that they screwed up the calculations by at least 2 knots) The game takes so many liberties with accuracy, speed and reliability that any IRL problem a ship might have had is simply washed away,. The 138mm doesn't have twice the RoF because that would be OP, not that it was flawed. It might actually make the Aigle a good ship, but that's besides the point. And for every paper ship that's better, there's a paper ship that's just worse, like the Izumo or Yorck. So really, in my mind, a paper ship or real ship is as good as the dev teams makes it, regardless of if it was built or not.

Why would being a blueprint intrinsically make a vehicle not as good as a vehicle actually built? Ships are strong or weak because of their characteristics, not their existence or lack thereof.

If anything, the Alsace and République shows perfectly that "but muh 32mm plating!" is a piss poor excuse to have a superheal.

Hrm... Yes, yes it is. That's why it's picked so damn often. It has the best armor, has ridiculously good DPM, has HE that pens 50mm decks, a massive amount of torpedoes per side, a ridiculous hydro, very good AA, turtleback that lolbounces so damn much, and as if that were not enough, it could now only take half the fire damage, meaning it could be even tankier. It's clearly the easiest CA to play. It might have a lower skill ceiling, but it's still incredibly easy to play, and adding even more survivability to it is just helping to further pervert the ship's original concept into the idiotic, skill-less max range HE spam and forgiving armor pile of bad decisions it is today. It says a lot when a ship that was specifically made to be a very brawly, AP-centered ship is most commonly used to long range HE spam, and it now more successful at it than the Zao, which was specifically made for a more long range harassing purpose. You cite all the (biased in your case, since you're not even drawing conclusions from it) statistics you want, you're still not able to grasp why a brawly AP cruiser is now a better HE slinger than an actual HE slinger is a bad thing.

Considering that most Hindens I meet just always dakka all the time from 18km and still easily manage to rake up some insane damage, I'm not sure what amounts to less than 2km worse concealment is what's keeping them awake. This is nothing more than giving those players extra rudder shift to better avoid AP, and even more resilience towards HE. All that on a ship that's been getting buff after buff to the point that the only thing that actually counters it is a Yamato or an Neptune/Minotaur that manages to catch it broadside for more than 10 seconds. It's a stupid ship that makes the InvisiZao look profound and full of complexity, with the devs piling more stupid into it on a bi-yearly schedule.

Ugh, was the Hindenburger not stronger enough already that they feel the need to halve the fire damage it takes?

As always, I start at rank 19 and stop at rank 15 All irrevocable, a few flags, a day of premium, and I get a nice little decorative flag at the end of the season.

I just unlocked the Kagero after playing both T7 IJN DDs. After 5 matches in a row with defeats, I launched a 6th game the next day, where I was promptly detonated within the first 3 minutes by a Duca D'Aosta, of all things. 7th game just now? 3 radar ships + a hydro DD against no hydro and no radar and a team of sniping BBs.the game was lost within the first 3 minutes. Trying out a 8th game right now, for the lulz. EDIT: Stupendous defeat. EDIT2: 9th defeat in a row. CV + hydro CA, BB and DD with vigilance (thank you German captain), multiple radar CAs, and a team that lemmings to A on trap while the CV suicides solo while I'm the only bottom tier of the team. Seriously, someone make a 10€ bet on me winning, the odds are at roughly ten million to one by now.

Alsace is the best T10 cruiser in the game.

If they're going that way, just give me joystick control. They'll regret that decision greatly when I tryhard to the max and pin point AP bombs on magazine dumps and devastate DDs with accurate, non RNG-reliant 1000lbs bomb drops

I used the Edinburgh with good success last season. Granted I never play more than 10 battles and always stop at rank 15 for the decorative flag, but the heal combined with the superb concealment+smoke means that you can scout, torpedo and deal significant damage.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q="Cross+Sectional+Fire+Power" => 0 results OT: Yeah, this tango between ludicrous AA values that can be knocked out and never fixing CVs is just frustrating. Min/max balancing is almost always dreadful. WG needs to completely rework the way AA values (and module health) works. No more -12 AA mounts when you're hit by a single HE salvo, and no more "lol my broken AA machinegun absorbed a 406mm HE shell", and certainly no more either pointless AA or AA bastion of doom.

The Donskoi is enormous. If the guy is sailing away to the sides, even at an angle, you can be sure that the 10 seconds required for BB shells to land on him might not be enough to give him time to veer away enough. Skill goes both ways. The BB can be good enough to adjust his aim to take into account maneuvering. I've done it to Donskois, I've done it to 1st rank good clan Zaos, and I'm certain I'll do it again. To consider getting unlucky twice to be a punishable offense is ridiculous. **** happens that's a fact of life, and I'm damn glad that it's not punishable by law to be on the receiving end.

Indeed. I ran full rudder shift + IFHE on the St Louis for the lulz (and that 50mm HE pen on the HIV) , and it worked great. There's far from a single build, and being in a large, easily visible cruiser with dubious maneuverability is going to lead to some awkward situations when you have 5 hungry BBs with enough range to shoot you where you spawned from where they spawned, and high enough caliber to overmatch you literally everywhere. Like being in an Omaha with a new captain you're training in a T7 game. You're minding your own business, trying to get to some cover a few km in front of your spawn, and boom, spotted by a DD from 13km away, and suddenly you see 2 Fusos and a Lyon looking at you. This is a situation that new players are going to face. A lot. There is no amount of git gud that will make you dodge all 17 thousand shells coming from a single salvo of said ships, and all they need is 3 hits.